APS - NNAT2 scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. That's one of the reasons that GT programs were created -- to engage kids who have disengaged. I guess APS doesn't see GT that way.

There is a difference between disengaged and won't engage. A child who is disengaged because the material is too easy but who will engage when presented with something more challenging will be found eligible, and seeing how they respond to this kind of additional challenge is typically part of the evaluation process. A child who is disengaged generally and refuses to engage with more challenging material won't be found eligible because they can't know if the child has the baseline knowledge and ability to access more advanced material if the child refuses to demonstrate that baseline knowledge/ability. And really, what would the child get from GT services anyway if they refuse to actually engage with any of it?

I tend to agree with the other posters who say there's probably more to the story that OP isn't sharing. First, the list of tests OP provided goes beyond what APS administers, which suggests her child has had an outside evaluation for something. Second, a sufficient unwillingness to engage at school that they would find the child ineligible for services in any subject area (as opposed to, for instance, only finding him eligible only in subject areas he particularly likes and thus is willing to do the work, even though he may be capable in all of the subject areas) tends to suggest there may be something else going on that needs to be evaluated and treated to allow the child to access school curriculum; I don't know if OP has gone through that evaluation process or what it might have found. APS GT teachers get lots of training in working with 2e kids, so if they know about a potentially confounding factor such as ADHD, dyslexia, etc., that might otherwise obscure a child's academic talents, they can account for that in the evaluation process (e.g., for a child who struggles with focusing on written work product due to ADHD, they might have a discussion with the child about a book they read rather than reviewing writing exercises about the book). But first they need to know the issue is there before they can account for it.

I agree that there is probably more to the story, and that PP has posted in other threads. However, more generally, you are defending that a well-run GT program should properly decline to accept a child with a WISC of 158 because of disengagement with school work? Because the school has failed the child so far, a reputable GT program should continue to fail the child? That doesn't make sense to me.

NP. It's hard to say without really knowing the whole situation. One test doesn't really tell the whole story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. That's one of the reasons that GT programs were created -- to engage kids who have disengaged. I guess APS doesn't see GT that way.

There is a difference between disengaged and won't engage. A child who is disengaged because the material is too easy but who will engage when presented with something more challenging will be found eligible, and seeing how they respond to this kind of additional challenge is typically part of the evaluation process. A child who is disengaged generally and refuses to engage with more challenging material won't be found eligible because they can't know if the child has the baseline knowledge and ability to access more advanced material if the child refuses to demonstrate that baseline knowledge/ability. And really, what would the child get from GT services anyway if they refuse to actually engage with any of it?

I tend to agree with the other posters who say there's probably more to the story that OP isn't sharing. First, the list of tests OP provided goes beyond what APS administers, which suggests her child has had an outside evaluation for something. Second, a sufficient unwillingness to engage at school that they would find the child ineligible for services in any subject area (as opposed to, for instance, only finding him eligible only in subject areas he particularly likes and thus is willing to do the work, even though he may be capable in all of the subject areas) tends to suggest there may be something else going on that needs to be evaluated and treated to allow the child to access school curriculum; I don't know if OP has gone through that evaluation process or what it might have found. APS GT teachers get lots of training in working with 2e kids, so if they know about a potentially confounding factor such as ADHD, dyslexia, etc., that might otherwise obscure a child's academic talents, they can account for that in the evaluation process (e.g., for a child who struggles with focusing on written work product due to ADHD, they might have a discussion with the child about a book they read rather than reviewing writing exercises about the book). But first they need to know the issue is there before they can account for it.

I agree that there is probably more to the story, and that PP has posted in other threads. However, more generally, you are defending that a well-run GT program should properly decline to accept a child with a WISC of 158 because of disengagement with school work? Because the school has failed the child so far, a reputable GT program should continue to fail the child? That doesn't make sense to me.

What I think is that test scores shouldn't be the sole basis for determining whether a child should be included in a GT program because there are a whole host of reasons a child might test well but still not perform academically at the gifted level. Some of those reasons are ones the school can and should address, but many of them are not ones they are able to address, legally or medically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. That's one of the reasons that GT programs were created -- to engage kids who have disengaged. I guess APS doesn't see GT that way.

There is a difference between disengaged and won't engage. A child who is disengaged because the material is too easy but who will engage when presented with something more challenging will be found eligible, and seeing how they respond to this kind of additional challenge is typically part of the evaluation process. A child who is disengaged generally and refuses to engage with more challenging material won't be found eligible because they can't know if the child has the baseline knowledge and ability to access more advanced material if the child refuses to demonstrate that baseline knowledge/ability. And really, what would the child get from GT services anyway if they refuse to actually engage with any of it?

I tend to agree with the other posters who say there's probably more to the story that OP isn't sharing. First, the list of tests OP provided goes beyond what APS administers, which suggests her child has had an outside evaluation for something. Second, a sufficient unwillingness to engage at school that they would find the child ineligible for services in any subject area (as opposed to, for instance, only finding him eligible only in subject areas he particularly likes and thus is willing to do the work, even though he may be capable in all of the subject areas) tends to suggest there may be something else going on that needs to be evaluated and treated to allow the child to access school curriculum; I don't know if OP has gone through that evaluation process or what it might have found. APS GT teachers get lots of training in working with 2e kids, so if they know about a potentially confounding factor such as ADHD, dyslexia, etc., that might otherwise obscure a child's academic talents, they can account for that in the evaluation process (e.g., for a child who struggles with focusing on written work product due to ADHD, they might have a discussion with the child about a book they read rather than reviewing writing exercises about the book). But first they need to know the issue is there before they can account for it.

I agree that there is probably more to the story, and that PP has posted in other threads. However, more generally, you are defending that a well-run GT program should properly decline to accept a child with a WISC of 158 because of disengagement with school work? Because the school has failed the child so far, a reputable GT program should continue to fail the child? That doesn't make sense to me.

What I think is that test scores shouldn't be the sole basis for determining whether a child should be included in a GT program because there are a whole host of reasons a child might test well but still not perform academically at the gifted level. Some of those reasons are ones the school can and should address, but many of them are not ones they are not able to address, legally or medically.

Fixed at bolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

What exactly is your complaint?

She's posted before. Something is clearly missing in the 1/2 story we are getting.

How is it possible that they refuse to identify a child after test scores are available?

As a general matter, APS uses the NNAT2 to identify children to evaluate for gifted services. Once they've been identified, the gifted services teacher works with the classroom teacher to review the child's class work to determine eligibility for gifted services; parents are also given an opportunity to fill out a form providing further information/examples to support eligibility. A child who is bored or who doesn't care for school will still be found eligible as long as they're willing to do school work and produce work that shows a strong understanding of the material and the ability to think at a higher level than the baseline curriculum. A child who isn't willing to engage at school won't be found eligible, though, because the evidence simply isn't there to support that they need or would benefit from greater challenge than they're already getting.

DP. That's one of the reasons that GT programs were created -- to engage kids who have disengaged. I guess APS doesn't see GT that way.

There is a difference between disengaged and won't engage. A child who is disengaged because the material is too easy but who will engage when presented with something more challenging will be found eligible, and seeing how they respond to this kind of additional challenge is typically part of the evaluation process. A child who is disengaged generally and refuses to engage with more challenging material won't be found eligible because they can't know if the child has the baseline knowledge and ability to access more advanced material if the child refuses to demonstrate that baseline knowledge/ability. And really, what would the child get from GT services anyway if they refuse to actually engage with any of it?

I tend to agree with the other posters who say there's probably more to the story that OP isn't sharing. First, the list of tests OP provided goes beyond what APS administers, which suggests her child has had an outside evaluation for something. Second, a sufficient unwillingness to engage at school that they would find the child ineligible for services in any subject area (as opposed to, for instance, only finding him eligible only in subject areas he particularly likes and thus is willing to do the work, even though he may be capable in all of the subject areas) tends to suggest there may be something else going on that needs to be evaluated and treated to allow the child to access school curriculum; I don't know if OP has gone through that evaluation process or what it might have found. APS GT teachers get lots of training in working with 2e kids, so if they know about a potentially confounding factor such as ADHD, dyslexia, etc., that might otherwise obscure a child's academic talents, they can account for that in the evaluation process (e.g., for a child who struggles with focusing on written work product due to ADHD, they might have a discussion with the child about a book they read rather than reviewing writing exercises about the book). But first they need to know the issue is there before they can account for it.

I'm the poster. We had an independent professional evaluate our child after his ES didn't accept him. It may sound baffling, but not if you are familiar with this ES. I wish APS would investigate the shenanigans at this school. We thought about appealing but decided against it because the GT program is so big and useless. When he moved on to MS, he was pulled out almost immediately. I presented his scores and he was admitted to the program. Like it or not; that's all there is to his story. Poor identification and administration in the GT program at this ES, for which my kid was but one example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

What exactly is your complaint?

She's posted before. Something is clearly missing in the 1/2 story we are getting.

How is it possible that they refuse to identify a child after test scores are available?

As a general matter, APS uses the NNAT2 to identify children to evaluate for gifted services. Once they've been identified, the gifted services teacher works with the classroom teacher to review the child's class work to determine eligibility for gifted services; parents are also given an opportunity to fill out a form providing further information/examples to support eligibility. A child who is bored or who doesn't care for school will still be found eligible as long as they're willing to do school work and produce work that shows a strong understanding of the material and the ability to think at a higher level than the baseline curriculum. A child who isn't willing to engage at school won't be found eligible, though, because the evidence simply isn't there to support that they need or would benefit from greater challenge than they're already getting.

DP. That's one of the reasons that GT programs were created -- to engage kids who have disengaged. I guess APS doesn't see GT that way.

There is a difference between disengaged and won't engage. A child who is disengaged because the material is too easy but who will engage when presented with something more challenging will be found eligible, and seeing how they respond to this kind of additional challenge is typically part of the evaluation process. A child who is disengaged generally and refuses to engage with more challenging material won't be found eligible because they can't know if the child has the baseline knowledge and ability to access more advanced material if the child refuses to demonstrate that baseline knowledge/ability. And really, what would the child get from GT services anyway if they refuse to actually engage with any of it?

I tend to agree with the other posters who say there's probably more to the story that OP isn't sharing. First, the list of tests OP provided goes beyond what APS administers, which suggests her child has had an outside evaluation for something. Second, a sufficient unwillingness to engage at school that they would find the child ineligible for services in any subject area (as opposed to, for instance, only finding him eligible only in subject areas he particularly likes and thus is willing to do the work, even though he may be capable in all of the subject areas) tends to suggest there may be something else going on that needs to be evaluated and treated to allow the child to access school curriculum; I don't know if OP has gone through that evaluation process or what it might have found. APS GT teachers get lots of training in working with 2e kids, so if they know about a potentially confounding factor such as ADHD, dyslexia, etc., that might otherwise obscure a child's academic talents, they can account for that in the evaluation process (e.g., for a child who struggles with focusing on written work product due to ADHD, they might have a discussion with the child about a book they read rather than reviewing writing exercises about the book). But first they need to know the issue is there before they can account for it.

I'm the poster. We had an independent professional evaluate our child after his ES didn't accept him. It may sound baffling, but not if you are familiar with this ES. I wish APS would investigate the shenanigans at this school. We thought about appealing but decided against it because the GT program is so big and useless. When he moved on to MS, he was pulled out almost immediately. I presented his scores and he was admitted to the program. Like it or not; that's all there is to his story. Poor identification and administration in the GT program at this ES, for which my kid was but one example.

What were his scores for tests given by the school? Were they high too or just the testing done by the consultant? Did you refer him to GT yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

What exactly is your complaint?

She's posted before. Something is clearly missing in the 1/2 story we are getting.

How is it possible that they refuse to identify a child after test scores are available?

As a general matter, APS uses the NNAT2 to identify children to evaluate for gifted services. Once they've been identified, the gifted services teacher works with the classroom teacher to review the child's class work to determine eligibility for gifted services; parents are also given an opportunity to fill out a form providing further information/examples to support eligibility. A child who is bored or who doesn't care for school will still be found eligible as long as they're willing to do school work and produce work that shows a strong understanding of the material and the ability to think at a higher level than the baseline curriculum. A child who isn't willing to engage at school won't be found eligible, though, because the evidence simply isn't there to support that they need or would benefit from greater challenge than they're already getting.

DP. That's one of the reasons that GT programs were created -- to engage kids who have disengaged. I guess APS doesn't see GT that way.

There is a difference between disengaged and won't engage. A child who is disengaged because the material is too easy but who will engage when presented with something more challenging will be found eligible, and seeing how they respond to this kind of additional challenge is typically part of the evaluation process. A child who is disengaged generally and refuses to engage with more challenging material won't be found eligible because they can't know if the child has the baseline knowledge and ability to access more advanced material if the child refuses to demonstrate that baseline knowledge/ability. And really, what would the child get from GT services anyway if they refuse to actually engage with any of it?

I tend to agree with the other posters who say there's probably more to the story that OP isn't sharing. First, the list of tests OP provided goes beyond what APS administers, which suggests her child has had an outside evaluation for something. Second, a sufficient unwillingness to engage at school that they would find the child ineligible for services in any subject area (as opposed to, for instance, only finding him eligible only in subject areas he particularly likes and thus is willing to do the work, even though he may be capable in all of the subject areas) tends to suggest there may be something else going on that needs to be evaluated and treated to allow the child to access school curriculum; I don't know if OP has gone through that evaluation process or what it might have found. APS GT teachers get lots of training in working with 2e kids, so if they know about a potentially confounding factor such as ADHD, dyslexia, etc., that might otherwise obscure a child's academic talents, they can account for that in the evaluation process (e.g., for a child who struggles with focusing on written work product due to ADHD, they might have a discussion with the child about a book they read rather than reviewing writing exercises about the book). But first they need to know the issue is there before they can account for it.

I'm the poster. We had an independent professional evaluate our child after his ES didn't accept him. It may sound baffling, but not if you are familiar with this ES. I wish APS would investigate the shenanigans at this school. We thought about appealing but decided against it because the GT program is so big and useless. When he moved on to MS, he was pulled out almost immediately. I presented his scores and he was admitted to the program. Like it or not; that's all there is to his story. Poor identification and administration in the GT program at this ES, for which my kid was but one example.

So you're judging the whole program based on something that happened, what, 5-6 years ago, even though APS has revamped the GT program since then? Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

What exactly is your complaint?

She's posted before. Something is clearly missing in the 1/2 story we are getting.

How is it possible that they refuse to identify a child after test scores are available?

As a general matter, APS uses the NNAT2 to identify children to evaluate for gifted services. Once they've been identified, the gifted services teacher works with the classroom teacher to review the child's class work to determine eligibility for gifted services; parents are also given an opportunity to fill out a form providing further information/examples to support eligibility. A child who is bored or who doesn't care for school will still be found eligible as long as they're willing to do school work and produce work that shows a strong understanding of the material and the ability to think at a higher level than the baseline curriculum. A child who isn't willing to engage at school won't be found eligible, though, because the evidence simply isn't there to support that they need or would benefit from greater challenge than they're already getting.

DP. That's one of the reasons that GT programs were created -- to engage kids who have disengaged. I guess APS doesn't see GT that way.

There is a difference between disengaged and won't engage. A child who is disengaged because the material is too easy but who will engage when presented with something more challenging will be found eligible, and seeing how they respond to this kind of additional challenge is typically part of the evaluation process. A child who is disengaged generally and refuses to engage with more challenging material won't be found eligible because they can't know if the child has the baseline knowledge and ability to access more advanced material if the child refuses to demonstrate that baseline knowledge/ability. And really, what would the child get from GT services anyway if they refuse to actually engage with any of it?

I tend to agree with the other posters who say there's probably more to the story that OP isn't sharing. First, the list of tests OP provided goes beyond what APS administers, which suggests her child has had an outside evaluation for something. Second, a sufficient unwillingness to engage at school that they would find the child ineligible for services in any subject area (as opposed to, for instance, only finding him eligible only in subject areas he particularly likes and thus is willing to do the work, even though he may be capable in all of the subject areas) tends to suggest there may be something else going on that needs to be evaluated and treated to allow the child to access school curriculum; I don't know if OP has gone through that evaluation process or what it might have found. APS GT teachers get lots of training in working with 2e kids, so if they know about a potentially confounding factor such as ADHD, dyslexia, etc., that might otherwise obscure a child's academic talents, they can account for that in the evaluation process (e.g., for a child who struggles with focusing on written work product due to ADHD, they might have a discussion with the child about a book they read rather than reviewing writing exercises about the book). But first they need to know the issue is there before they can account for it.

I'm the poster. We had an independent professional evaluate our child after his ES didn't accept him. It may sound baffling, but not if you are familiar with this ES. I wish APS would investigate the shenanigans at this school. We thought about appealing but decided against it because the GT program is so big and useless. When he moved on to MS, he was pulled out almost immediately. I presented his scores and he was admitted to the program. Like it or not; that's all there is to his story. Poor identification and administration in the GT program at this ES, for which my kid was but one example.

What were his scores for tests given by the school? Were they high too or just the testing done by the consultant? Did you refer him to GT yourself?

The NNAT2 and Cogat were done by the school. He was not referred. His teacher thought he just wasn't very academically interested. We self referred. He was denied admission. We requested a meeting to explain, where the administration told us that he didn't seem interested in school. We had him tested with the WISC-IV with the thought of appealing. We decided not to appeal. He is not E2, not very extreme in behavior, just apparently checked out in the classrooms in ES. It's better now in MS. He has straight As, is in the GT program and seems more interested for sure. I think it's a clear case of his ES mismanaging the GT program. I don't think he's alone in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

If your child's scores are really that high, you need to appeal at the county level. The Gifted Supervisor will turn over the decision with those scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

What exactly is your complaint?

She's posted before. Something is clearly missing in the 1/2 story we are getting.

How is it possible that they refuse to identify a child after test scores are available?

As a general matter, APS uses the NNAT2 to identify children to evaluate for gifted services. Once they've been identified, the gifted services teacher works with the classroom teacher to review the child's class work to determine eligibility for gifted services; parents are also given an opportunity to fill out a form providing further information/examples to support eligibility. A child who is bored or who doesn't care for school will still be found eligible as long as they're willing to do school work and produce work that shows a strong understanding of the material and the ability to think at a higher level than the baseline curriculum. A child who isn't willing to engage at school won't be found eligible, though, because the evidence simply isn't there to support that they need or would benefit from greater challenge than they're already getting.

If the school is basing a gifted ID on willingness to produce work or engage, there is a problem. That isn't the message teachers in the county should be delivering, because they are trained in gifted underachievers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

If your child's scores are really that high, you need to appeal at the county level. The Gifted Supervisor will turn over the decision with those scores.

If the child's scores were this high and he/she didn't have a 2E issue going on (which might make them hard to manage in a classroom), I think a professional would understand why he/she was disengaged in ES and in MS became more engaged. This child was likely ready for middle school material back in 2nd or 3rd grade and spent three or four years reading their own material during class and still getting straight As, so not disengaged just....done. As an adult (with college education knowledge) would you like to sit through high school classes again, year after year, all day in the school year, doing worksheets?
I understand gifted programs, but these scores place this child in the 99.99% for IQ scores. What kind of elementary school education would have been engaging? Probably one that supplemented middle school work starting in 2nd or 3rd grade and moved on to high school stuff around 5th or 6th. Not what the current public gifted programs offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

What exactly is your complaint?

She's posted before. Something is clearly missing in the 1/2 story we are getting.

+1, sounds like a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

GT program was good as long as you were interested to put your DC in it. The moment your DC is not qualified you are asking why APS allow this at a public school!! Your story is incomplete. What is your definition of 'lesser qualified kids'? These kids are in their because they met the standard/criteria set by ASFS.

[Anonymous]

A GT program that doesn't accept a child with very high scores because he's "not interested in school" is really problematic. Underachievement is very common among gifted children and is often the result of the drudgery of being forced to work with material that the child has mastered years ago or that the child learns immediately (while the class spends a month on it). This is exactly the type of child who most needs a GT program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got a 160 on the NNAT2, v high Cogat, and a 158 on the WISC-IV. Denied admission to GT program at ASFS because "he doesn't seem to be interested in school." Face palm. We supplement at home, but it irks me that lesser qualified kids are sucking up all the resources and oxygen and are paraded around by their parents as in the GT club. Why does APS allow this at a public school? Let's stipulate that I'm bitter, to avoid the nasty mom club argument that uses that phrase like a weapon. Yep, I'm bitter that my kid is not interested in school because the administration doesn't do its job in providing a good education.

What exactly is your complaint?

She's posted before. Something is clearly missing in the 1/2 story we are getting.

How is it possible that they refuse to identify a child after test scores are available?

As a general matter, APS uses the NNAT2 to identify children to evaluate for gifted services. Once they've been identified, the gifted services teacher works with the classroom teacher to review the child's class work to determine eligibility for gifted services; parents are also given an opportunity to fill out a form providing further information/examples to support eligibility. A child who is bored or who doesn't care for school will still be found eligible as long as they're willing to do school work and produce work that shows a strong understanding of the material and the ability to think at a higher level than the baseline curriculum. A child who isn't willing to engage at school won't be found eligible, though, because the evidence simply isn't there to support that they need or would benefit from greater challenge than they're already getting.

DP. That's one of the reasons that GT programs were created -- to engage kids who have disengaged. I guess APS doesn't see GT that way.

There is a difference between disengaged and won't engage. A child who is disengaged because the material is too easy but who will engage when presented with something more challenging will be found eligible, and seeing how they respond to this kind of additional challenge is typically part of the evaluation process. A child who is disengaged generally and refuses to engage with more challenging material won't be found eligible because they can't know if the child has the baseline knowledge and ability to access more advanced material if the child refuses to demonstrate that baseline knowledge/ability. And really, what would the child get from GT services anyway if they refuse to actually engage with any of it?

I tend to agree with the other posters who say there's probably more to the story that OP isn't sharing. First, the list of tests OP provided goes beyond what APS administers, which suggests her child has had an outside evaluation for something. Second, a sufficient unwillingness to engage at school that they would find the child ineligible for services in any subject area (as opposed to, for instance, only finding him eligible only in subject areas he particularly likes and thus is willing to do the work, even though he may be capable in all of the subject areas) tends to suggest there may be something else going on that needs to be evaluated and treated to allow the child to access school curriculum; I don't know if OP has gone through that evaluation process or what it might have found. APS GT teachers get lots of training in working with 2e kids, so if they know about a potentially confounding factor such as ADHD, dyslexia, etc., that might otherwise obscure a child's academic talents, they can account for that in the evaluation process (e.g., for a child who struggles with focusing on written work product due to ADHD, they might have a discussion with the child about a book they read rather than reviewing writing exercises about the book). But first they need to know the issue is there before they can account for it.

I'm the poster. We had an independent professional evaluate our child after his ES didn't accept him. It may sound baffling, but not if you are familiar with this ES. I wish APS would investigate the shenanigans at this school. We thought about appealing but decided against it because the GT program is so big and useless. When he moved on to MS, he was pulled out almost immediately. I presented his scores and he was admitted to the program. Like it or not; that's all there is to his story. Poor identification and administration in the GT program at this ES, for which my kid was but one example.

I want to revive this thread - would you be willing to say which school this was or other parents in APS who question gifted services at their schools?

[Anonymous]

Iq of 158 is.... unlikely. Even IF 2e in Arl, kid would have to be identified....and would stand out to all adults and most kids. It’s almost unheard of...